gtafandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Unknown high-wing plane
Comparison OK lets see. Since there are some "issues" in this page, let me ask something: Do you think that these planes aren't related? Unknownplane-GTAV-beta.png|The Unknown high-wing plane. Dodo-Seaplane-GTAV.jpg|Front view of the Dodo. Dodo-seaplane-GTAV-Screenshot.jpg|Side view of the Dodo. With these images, we can see that both shares the design of the real life aircraft, mentioned in both pages, the same paint scheme and various details that will determine that both planes are identical. Therefore, both will be manufactured by the same manufacturer (Mammoth in this case) and the plane would carry 2 occupants, because the Dodo can carry 4, but 2 inside the same and other 2 hanging on the sides. The Unknown Military ATV is also a Beta vehicle and is still assumed to be manufactured by Mammoth due to being similar to the Patriot. Why not the same with this plane? Why? I don't wanna be issued for doing an edit warring, so I made this to let other users to make a conclusion. Thanks. Camilo Flores (talk) 16:22, February 10, 2015 (UTC) The Patriot is confirmed to be a Mammoth vehicle, so an adaptation would likely be made by the same company. There's no confirmation this is the beta Dodo, nor does it prove that they are practically identical. Leo68 (talk) 17:03, February 10, 2015 (UTC) : I think it should be listed as a Mammoth vehicle, since it's identical to the Dodo. (talk/ /blog) 17:19, February 10, 2015 (UTC) It was never released. It may have had a different manufacturer. Yet the "same design" argument is invalided by multiple IRL vehicles that share the design platform but have different manufacturers. Example: the OH6 Cayuse is manufactured by Hughes, yet its armed variant, the Little Bird, its military variant, is manufactured by MD Helicopters. In addition, since the vehicle was never released, I don't see a point to be obsessed to add assumed manufacturers (same applies to the Unknown Military ATV). 18:58, February 10, 2015 (UTC) I somewhat agree with you Rain. Assumptions (or speculation) shouldn't be tolerated much here. I believe it's a beta Dodo and that the seaplane seen in the first trailer was a Skimmer. However, we don't have proof. Also, I can't remember who said so, but the Unknown Military ATV may come to the game in the Heists Update. Therefore, we can then find out if it is made by Mammoth or not. I believe it is though. ( ) 19:02, February 10, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8 : Then where's the real proof on the Military ATV? Huh? It's the same issue as here! Both are similar to their released counterparts, and only the ATV's manufaturer is assumed? Come on, it's sad that there are people that can't check the difference because the aircraft's image is too small to see. Well, that's not my problem because I see perfectly. But no, no real explanation is seen, except that is considered speculative or lacks a proof. Sorry, but I don't make a conclusion in that way. I was trying to be as neutral as possible, instead of said something like: "This plane IS manufatured by that company", "This plane carry FOUR occupants", etc.. For me, it is not intended to be a speculation, is intended to be like a reference, with only visual evidences and while this is false, there are many GTA sites that states that is true. Come on.Camilo Flores (talk) 00:55, February 11, 2015 (UTC) ::Again it is unneeded. The plane was never released. The "same design" argument is invalided by the example I showed above, and BTW, some aircraft don't have manufacturers. GTA Wiki is meant to have factual info, not fan-based info from what they see. And what GTA websites say has no effect on how do we treat speculation. 13:43, February 11, 2015 (UTC) I don't wanna be a dick, but only the Barracks Semi is proven to be manufactured by HVY, the Barracks OL is said to be an HVY vehicle because it shares the same front, the same goes to this Unknown plane. (talk/ /blog) 14:27, February 11, 2015 (UTC) :There is a difference between a truck that has a different truck bed style and a plane that was modified to be able to land on the water (because simply adding pontoons does not make it able to land on the water). 17:46, February 11, 2015 (UTC) :::As you said: a plane that was modified to be able to land on the water so it's likely that Mammoth made a Seaplane version of this plane. (talk/ /blog) 18:14, February 11, 2015 (UTC) ::::That still remains speculation. And either way, since it was unreleased, we don't need to assume anything about it. Remember: factual information. Fan-based speculation is (and will always be) irrelevant. 18:20, February 11, 2015 (UTC) :::::Your opinion is still unvalidated. I mean, think about the Beta Hunter. The vehicle was never specified or discovered in the files for being exactly the Hunter, but it was strongly assumed to be the same by the design, which is not completely the same as the 3D rendition, but due to the similarities, it was strongly called in that way and no one even has reverted this. Therefore, the plane should be considered a variant, because visual evidences aren't considered speculation. That's how many things such the ATV was assumed via visual evidences, because there's no other way to check them. Camilo Flores (talk) 15:59, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Speculation is sometimes relevant, see Ghost Dog, but this is off-topic, but anyway, about that plane, I think it's a bit obvious that it would be made by Mammoth, as I said, imagin if there's a vehicle in the beta with the same design as the Coquette, but unnamed, it would be made by Invetero, wouldn't it? (talk/ /blog) 16:31, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Copy and past from Wikipedia's Crystal Ball policy: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Factual. FACTUAL. If people want to speculate about the game, they can simply bring it up to forums and blogs. There's no need to spam articles with speculative crap that just makes the article poor. Oh, and @Camilo, there are game files for the Hunter in GTA V's code. 16:57, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Nope. Other than trailer for The Simian and Warstock ad, there are no other leftovers of the Hunter. We don't even know if it was called the Hunter. 17:02, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Extract from the Beta Vehicles article: "The Hunter from GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas and GTA Vice City Stories was meant to be included in GTA V, but ended up being taken out for unknown reasons. Handling and sound files, however, have been left in the game's data. It can be seen in the in-game trailer movie for The Simian, as well as on the Warstock Cache & Carry advertisement. Police scanner audio is still in the game files." So I assume this has yet to be verified. 17:05, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Oops. Yeah, audio remains too. Coding and models are completely gone though. I feel stupid now lol 17:07, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Then, Rain, if you think that factual info are only allowed, what about some other pages? Look, the Jet is believed to be manufactured by Western Company. How it was supposed to be? Simple. Doing a comparison with the real-life aircraft company and everything related, it might suggest the fact, even when there's no internal proof that the Jet is actually manufactured by Western Company. As Andre said, the Ghost Dog was also believed to be the dog seen in the mentioned website, even if is unknown if both are actually the same, but possible. Checking both pages, both are likely "speculation" for you, Rain, but no one even revert these edits. Why? I don't know, possibly because these are interesting, because these are like references or because those infos are not necessarily verified to be true or false, as long as these ones are related with the topic, of course. Camilo Flores (talk) 18:21, February 12, 2015 (UTC) "Look, the Jet is believed to be manufactured by Western Company. How it was supposed to be? Simple. Doing a comparison with the real-life aircraft company and everything related, it might suggest the fact, even when there's no internal proof that the Jet is actually manufactured by Western Company." Taking example on IRL vehicles is irrelevant, as there are multiple GTA vehicles whose manufacturer doesn't match with their IRL counterpart. And BTW, I haven't seen any Western Company mention on the Jet page. "As Andre said, the Ghost Dog was also believed to be the dog seen in the mentioned website, even if is unknown if both are actually the same, but possible." I didn't notice the text before. And yet I disagree with that theory. There's nothing to suggest a connection between both. "Checking both pages, both are likely "speculation" for you, Rain" Such info is not speculation to me, it's speculation to everyone. Speculation because these facts cannot be verified in-game. They remain suggestions. Unless it can be verified, it will be speculation, and not actual info, or factual one. "no one even revert these edits. Why? I don't know, possibly because these are interesting," Or because not many people are aware that a page called "Ghost Dog" exist and have better things to do than going around the Wiki to search for speculation and remove it. "those infos are not necessarily verified to be true or false, as long as these ones are related with the topic" No. Following this logic anyone could add his input with completely false theories, but should be kept only for being "related with the topic". I'm going to repeat what I wrote above and simply state that let people imagine. If someone somehow gets to the Unknown high-wing plane article, they could simply imagine that it is manufactured by X (e.g., Mammoth in this case), yet that does not force us to fill the "Manufacturer" field of the infobox. Which is why the Wiki should contain only factual information, and all the speculative part should stick to forums, blogs, and people's imagination. 18:50, February 12, 2015 (UTC) : C'mon don't be a dick, speculation is welcome in many wikis, and in my opinion, some (but not all) are welcome too, if you think speculation is useless, check this article in the Red Dead wiki. Interesting, isn't it? Also, the game The Last of Us ''is entirely based on a speculation, as the storyline is finished, nobody knows what happened in the game, so many theories and speculations are created, not because we ''want ''but because we ''shall, but hey, don't get out of this topic, as I was saying, it may be a very little speculation, but it's more likely, see, there's a wrecked police car in the game files of The Ballad of Gay Tony, but it was cut from the final version, then why do we know that this vehicle is made by Vapid? Simple, it's a wrecked Vapid Stanier... Also, I added Grotti as a manufacturer for the CityScape because the CityScape is in fact a modified Turismo, that's all I want to say, sounds simple. (talk/ /blog) 19:08, February 12, 2015 (UTC) "I haven't seen any Western Company mention on the Jet page" Ehmm... Check the manufacturer page. "it's speculation to everyone" Not everyone takes some of these infos as speculation. Some will take it as a reference or similar (like the ATV, which is identical to the Patriot at the front, it was assumed and that's it). I don't know. "If someone somehow gets to the Unknown high-wing plane article, they could simply imagine that it is manufactured by X (e.g., Mammoth in this case), yet that does not force us to fill the "Manufacturer" field of the infobox." Instead, will put a trivia about it, adding something like "It possibly...", "It would be..., because...", etc. Camilo Flores (talk) 19:14, February 12, 2015 (UTC) :Removed the Western Company fact per what I stated above. As for the trivia fact, seems fair to me, if we indicate than it would be possibly manufactured by Mammoth due to the similarity of design with the Mammoth Dodo. But the infobox should be as it is right now. 19:20, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Thanks for understanding that, Rain ;) (talk/ /blog) 19:25, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Understood. That's a deal, Rain. Thanks for consider my suggestion in the Trivia. Camilo Flores (talk) 19:28, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Guys i actually found in the Police Scanner mentions the Hunter so theres proof: https://tcrf.net/images/4/4e/GTAV-Hunterscanner.ogg[[User:RockstarFanboy|RockstarFanboy]] (talk) 08:12, February 13, 2015 (UTC) Name Just being doing some research, found a possible name: Beagle Credit: http://gtaforums.com/topic/678397-the-gta-v-beta-hunt/page-67 (search to about 7/8's of the page, where an image will show: (talk) | ( ) 19:29, February 19, 2015 (UTC) That's the fakest image I've seen. 19:30, February 19, 2015 (UTC) :Per above. Blatant Photoshop. 19:31, February 19, 2015 (UTC) :I thought the same too, the text isn't the same. However, some consdier this the beta, but that still doesn't support how fake it looks :) (talk) | ( ) 20:22, February 19, 2015 (UTC) For me, it's too much obvious that this plane would never be a Beagle, the Beagle isn't even in the game files and this plane is far too different from the Beagle from the 3D Universe, it should have at least two propellers. (talk/ /blog) 21:27, February 19, 2015 (UTC) Even the URL link is false. The same above is used in the Shamal when selected. (As seen in this image ). The price is a bit odd. Is even cheaper than a Duster. Camilo Flores (talk) 00:45, February 20, 2015 (UTC) I guess so, i just thought it would be nice to see what other users think of this. I thought it was fake too, but, hey ho, what a nice conclusion :) (talk) | ( ) 12:10, February 20, 2015 (UTC)